TomTom wrote:
>> TomTom wrote:
>>>> Paul Blair wrote:
>>>>> This may turn out to be interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> A 54-year-old man who allegedly refused to turn his mobile phone
>>>>> off during a Jetstar flight out of Sydney has been charged with
>>>>> endangering an aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>> So maybe someone will have to *prove* beyond reasonable doubt that
>>>>> a mobile phone actually endangers an aircraft?
>>>>
>>>> Added aus.legal
>>>>
>>>> Probably not. The relevant legislation is
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1991165/s22.html
>>>>
>>>> "(1) A person who, while on board a Division 3 aircraft, does an
>>>> act, reckless as to whether the act will endanger the safety of the
>>>> aircraft, is guilty of an offence."
>>>>
>>>> So I think they'll only have to prove that he was reckless about the
>>>> safety aspect, not that the aircraft was in fact endangered or could
>>>> be endangered.
>>>
>>> I don't agree. They will have to prove an awareness of that safety
>>> aspect, although not an actual intention to endanger the aircraft.
>>> And proving that awareness might not be so simple. Some behaviour
>>> will readily be taken as showing such an awareness.
>>
>> This could depend on whether the crew told him *why* they required him
>> to turn his phone off.
>
> Most people are aware that mobile phones (and much other electronic
> gear) are not allowed to be used once you get on board, and certainly
> during ground movement and flight, because it interferes with radio
> communications. Well, that's the standard claim, anyway.
>
> But the prosecution can't rely on that. They would have to show an
> awareness that the behaviour did, in fact, endanger the aircraft. If,
> in fact, at that particular time, the use of the mobile phone did not
> actually endanger the aircraft, there is no case to answer. It would
> not matter what the person's state of mind was.
The wording in the legislation is "reckless as to whether the act will
endanger the safety of the aircraft." If there were an intended
requirement that the aircraft actually be endangered as well, I'd have
thought the section would say so.
>
>>> Trying to open a door in flight, for example.
>>
>> That would be interesting, given that it's impossible once the
>> aircraft is pressurized, unless the person has superhuman strength.
>
> It's only my poor example of behaviour that could be accepted as
> endangering the aircraft. What about lighting a fire in a toilet?
I'll give you that one.
Sylvia.
